Mirasol v. De la Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Pedro Mirasol filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against private respondent Dominador Mendoza. In his Answer, Mendoza interposed a Counterclaim alleging a tenancy contract and that the complaint was filed for harassment, praying for moral damages and declaration of lease-hold relations. Procedural History: The Municipal Court dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaim for insufficient proof. On appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, finding it to be an agrarian matter, and awarded attorney's fees of not less than P500.00 in favor of the defendant. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to modify the judgment by deleting the award of attorney's fees, contending it has no basis in fact and law, as there was no stipulation, it does not fall under the exceptions in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, and it was not claimed nor proved. He also argues the amount is unreasonable.
Issue(s)
Whether the award of attorney's fees in favor of the private respondent is proper. Whether the respondent court erred in awarding attorney's fees without factual and legal basis.
Ruling
The appealed decision is modified by deleting the award of attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the award of attorney's fees is proper: The Court held that the award of attorney's fees is an exception to the general rule that they are not recoverable in the absence of stipulation. Article 2208 of the Civil Code enumerates the exceptions. The private respondent's contention that attorney's fees may be given as moral damages is incorrect, as they are recoverable only as actual damages. Furthermore, the claim that the complaint was clearly unfounded and filed for harassment was not substantiated by proof, nor were there findings to that effect by the respondent judge. While Article 2208(4) allows attorney's fees in cases of clearly unfounded civil actions, this requires proof of facts and circumstances constituting bad faith, which was absent. The general prayer for relief in the Answer is insufficient to justify the award without factual and legal basis. On whether the respondent court erred in awarding attorney's fees without factual and legal basis: The Court emphasized that the exercise of judicial discretion in awarding attorney's fees under Article 2208(11) demands a factual, legal, or equitable justification. The award cannot be a conclusion without a premise, left to speculation. The policy of the law is that awards of attorney's fees remain an exception. Therefore, it is necessary for the court to make express findings of fact and law that bring the case within an exception and justify the grant. The appealed decision was bereft of any such findings, with the award of attorney's fees appearing only in the dispositive portion without stating the reason. Consequently, the award was deemed conjectural and disallowed.
Main Doctrine
The award of attorney's fees requires express findings of fact and law that bring the case within the exceptions provided in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, and such award cannot be made solely in the dispositive portion of the decision without stating the reason therefor.